The Guardian: U.S. poses a greater danger than North Korea

Great Debates
21

The poll was conducted with the Guardian’s involvement. Further, ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,010 adults by telephone from October 27-30. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. Polling was by phone in Canada (sample 1,007), Israel (1,078) and Mexico (1,010).

Not exactly a massive sampling and one that would justify such coverage. Just my $.02. As for biased reporting, well the Guardian rips on Bush et al in their sports section, it really runs that deep.

22

Of course; in terms of the actualy danger each poses to the world, Bush is far worse. In terms of the harm already done outside his own borders, he’s orders of magnitude worse.

No, underreaction if anything. Osama = irritation, Bush = severe danger. Osama hasn’t devastated a country recently, after all; that was us.

I doubt it would make much difference, except in the targets. Oh, I’m sure President Osama would love to mass-nuke Israel, but he’d be just as restrained from doing that by politics as Bush is from carpet-nuking Iran, which I think he’d love to do.

In fact, I think Osama would be a much better president for America than Bush, simply because he’d get so much less cooperation than Bush does with his looniness.

Yes, reality’s well known liberal bias does make many newspapers anti-American. In fact, it makes most of the world anti-American.

23

This survey was conducted in the UK, France, Mexico, Israel, and Canada IRC. It was headline news here in Montreal, in both languages.

Only in Israel did 59% of people interviewed feel that the war in Iraq was a good thing.

I don’t see the Guardian headline as “blasting” either. La Presse here in Montreal conducted the French Canadian part of the survey, and they are definitely a moderate paper, not a left-wing one.

24

Given how unpopular he is, especially outside this country, that makes perfect sense. If you’re looking to pad an article, and want to make your readers happy, slamming Bush makes sense.

25

Absolutely. The problem is, it can sometimes be so one-sided that it almost becomes farical. The Guardian also has a poor history vis-a-vis Israel and their treatment of Jewish issues. Sorry if I take pretty much everything in that paper with a grain of salt (though they do have a great sports section).

26

A sample of 1000 is standard practice. Look at any election poll, for instance.

And the Guardian, along with other British broadsheets, maintains a very clear distinction between news reportage and editorial articles. If you’re taking ‘American’ to be the baseline, then all of them would be left-of-centre. On the other hand, we see all American media as massively right-wing. Who’s right?

27

Whose decisions have saved the most innocent people abroad? Seriously, how many people would be dead if the US stopped being the world leader in international charity and humanitarian aid?

What have Kim and Osama done for the world? How many innocent people have they saved?

28

If you’re going to pose this one, I hope you’ve got a followup…

29

You know, your question made me think of the movie “Falling Down” starring Michael Douglas. “I’m the bad guy? How did that happen?” Hmmmmmm

30

I wonder just what Nicaragua did to threaten the US so much ?

They elected a government under a system that is advertised by the US as being the one to have, and then tose idiot Nicaraguans elected the wrong sort of government.

What about Chile ? The threat to nationalise the copper industry, with other possible nationalisations of US owned business brought US support for ‘regime change’ and in came that kindly old chap Genral Pinochet - strange that when the UK and France invaded Egypt to look after their interest in the Suez canal, the US took a somewhat differant view.

I think maybe some US posters will perhaps forget what happened in Bolivia when President Juan Jose Torres nationalised the holdings of Gulf oil, needless to say, the government that overthrew his, led by Hugo Banzer was rather less kind, some might indeed say he was a brutally repressive individual, but how could that possibly be when the white knight of the US assisted him ?

Maybe some of you will remember what occurred in Guatamala, and that nice chap and everyones favourite despot VINICIO CEREZO, who was supported in both materials training and ‘advisors’ to seize his position, look him up on Google, you’ll find he was quite a peice of work.

We could also look at Honduras, or El Salvador for other examples, we could look at Iraq and Saddam Hussain, we might move on to wonder why the US supported Shah was such a hated figure in Iran.

How about Ferdinand Marcos, bankrolled by the US and he kept plenty for himself, is it a surprise there is an ongoing security problem there ?

General Noriega, the US put him in place, knew all about his misbehaviour, but only remooved him when he wasn’t convenient any more.

Cambodia, where the US was not fighting a war, a surprisingly large number of Cambodians died in the war the US was not waging in that country. At on time the US also supported Pol Pot in the hope that he would be a counter to North Vietnemese. Nice company there boys.

Others that have recieved US aid, in various ways include President Suharto of Indonesia and also the Argentine Junta during its ‘dirty war’ and whose regime ultimately fell after the Falklands war.

When you look at the list of evil individuals the US has supported, along with the UK, France, and many others, none of the adavnced nations can claim to have clean hands.

Bush is no worse and no better than other US presidents, which makes him a pretty dangerous individual.

Britain was pretty nasty in its time, even Belgium has been utterly depraved in its repression.

It all flows from imbalances of power, from self interest and real politic.

Bush is more dangerous than most, simply because the nation he leads has more power available, and has more interests around the world.

Bush will continue the proud US tradition of undermining governments, knocking down leaders that the US has no purpose for, and building up anyone who will cosy up to the US, no atter what sort of evil beast they happen to be.

I somehow think if another nation were as powerful as the US, it would be no differant, we only have to look at the Soviet Union as an example.

Of course Bush is more dangerous than any other national leader, and it will not change when he is replaced, the incoming US president will keep the ball rolling, one way or another.

31

If you murder my sister I really am not going to give a shit if you hand me a chocolate bar.

None, but that wasn’t the question asked, was it? I mean, you don’t really think being charitable makes up for murdering people, do you? Is Charles Manson off the hook if he gives to the United Way?

32

So deaths as a result of the US’s decisions equals murder.

Sorry, just ignore my post. I retract everything I said. It was a mistake. I’m outta here.

33

Yes.

34

Number of countries invaded by the United States this century: 2

Number of countries invaded by North Korea this century: 0

35

**If you’re the one whose relative is dead, of course it does. **

The awesome, almost mystical ability of some (and I stress some) Americans to turn a blind eye to the fact that they are not a different species from the people who live in other countries is just… it’s awe-inspiring. I cannot believe people can be so insular.

Let me break it down for you. Suppose China had a army way, way bigger than anyone had thought, with hidden superduper cargo planes in the tens of thousands, and invades the United States tomorrow and overruns it with astonishing speed. Suppose they then occupy it for years on end. In so doing, some Chinese soldiers rape your little sister, shoot her, and set the body on fire to hide the crime. Or maybe they just blow your whole family away at a checkpoint. Or perhaps your son is playing soccer and they machine gun him to death. Or maybe a Chinese plane bombs a wedding and kills your wife.

Do you think it would make it up to you if the Chinese government built a nice community centre near your house?

I dunno about YOU, but if some foreign power invades MY country and kills my relatives, that is a debt no amount of blood would repay.

36

If the “decisions” in question involve deciding to launch an unprovoked war on another country, then why wouldn’t the resulting deaths be morally equivalent to murder? Why do you think international law forbids launching unprovoked wars?

Deaths in war aren’t just some kind of “oopsie” or regrettable accident. Going to war is deliberately setting out to kill people. If somebody deliberately sets out to kill people, without the justification of trying to protect themselves or others from an attack or imminent serious danger of attack, what would you call that except murder?

37

Frostillicus

I think your figures are out somewhat.

Germany, Italy, couple of bits of Japanese territory, Iraq, North Korea, Afghanistan, Panama, the North Russia campaign against the Reds in 1918, Grenada, Somalia, Haiti was occupied for nearly 20 years, Dominican Republic was occupied for 8 years and later in 1965 20k US troops landed there to take control the covert war in Cambodia certainly counts as an invasion, the covert war in Laos.

In any case, this does not even begin to address the number of US interventions, interferance and organised coups along with the ‘advisory’ role of US military staff. Plus support for regimes that have been implicated with some horrific human rights abuses, this support in many cases has been very active and has overtly and covertly used US personnel.

It also does not address the OP, which is that Bush is alleged to be more dangerous than Kim Il Jong.

The fear with li’l Kim is that he is unpredictable, but balance that against the predictability that Bush and all subsequent US presidents will authorise continued interferance in the affairs of other nations, and that predicably the US will support future evil despots, the US represents an active and ongoing threat to many nations for the forseeable future.

38

He specified this century, casdave.

39

And their biases are well-known too. Your point is?

40

I cannot agree. Compare what is reported in say, the Daily Mail, the Telegraph, The Guardian, and the BBC.